Queen Air Mattress Care and Maintenance

If you’ve ever purchased an air bed, you know how easily they can develop leaks.  Sometimes it seems as though you can just sneeze on them and next thing you know, you’ve got a hole.  Although it can seem hit or miss, there are some steps you can take to keep your queen air mattress ready for use, and reduce the risk of developing leaks in your air mattress.

Coghlan’s 8880 Airstop

You can do your best to reduce the risk of leaks, but sometimes they just happen. The best way to not throw away the investment you’ve made in your air mattress is to repair it with a good patching solution. One of the best available is


. It’s a liquid repair solution for vinyl and ideal for air mattresses. No other patching material required. It gets really good reviews and has several 5 star ratings. Worth a look.

Ok, now let’s focus on what you can do to prevent leaks…

Don’t Put Too Much Air Into Your Inflatable Mattress
The first tip deals with understanding the materials that are used to construct an air mattress. Many air mattresses are made from a Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) plastic. The individual plastic pieces are stitched together to form seams. As you inflate the air bed, the plastic and the seams begin to stretch. So, the first thing many manufacturers recommend is to inflate your mattress for the first time to only about 90% of its total capacity. The idea is to allow the plastic to expand a bit, without over-extending it. After several hours, you should deflate the mattress. You can repeat this a few times if you like. Then you can fully inflate the air bed. The key is to never put too much air into the mattress. Over inflating WILL cause leaks…guaranteed. Only inflate the mattress until the desired firmness is achieved.

The Longer You Can Leave The Air Mattress Inflated, The Better
If you can avoid it, don’t constantly inflate and deflate the air bed. Again, remember, the seams hold the plastic sections together. The more stress you put on the seams, the more likely you are to have problems. If it is practical, leaving your air mattress filled with air for several days of use, versus inflating and deflating each day is your best bet.

Common Sense Tips To Extend The Life of Your Queen Air Bed
Now its time for a few obvious suggestions. Although it may be big fun for the kids, its recommended that you don’t allow them to jump and play on the inflatable mattress. As the surface of the bed is pushed down, air is forced outward, stretching the seams. That is a recipe for disaster. Same goes with ignoring the weight capacity limitations of the air bed. If one or more individuals combine to exceed the documented weight limits over an extended number of occurrences, you may run into problems. Lastly, even though we love our cats and dogs, you should attempt to keep them away from the air mattress if possible. One swipe of their claws could easily puncture the mattress.

Of course, you could always purchase a durable serta air mattress, or another reputable mattress brand with a proven history of retaining air over long periods of time. If not, the information above is all you’ll need. Now you understand how portable air beds are made, and some of the common ways leaks may occur. With a little caution and some common sense, you’ll be enjoying your queen air mattres for years to come.

For more info – casper promo code

Attack of the Grey Goo

Grey goo is the eschatological threat of human extinction and complete environmental destruction involving nanotechnology. Self-replicating machines, with unrestrained reproduction fill the earth and perhaps the universe. That is the bad news. Good news and more inside.

The good news is that we may end death and taxes. Nanotechnology offers the possibility of limitless human leisure and near immortality.

Many proponents of nanotechnology suggest that the endless cosmic chemical experiments, both organic and not suggest that no grey goo is coming to get us.

This argument is badly flawed for two reasons.
1) We are the grey goo they warned us about
2) Other grey goos may be on their way.

Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker, explains the Cairns-Smith’s theory that life was created by clay-crystals. According to this theory, RNA came before DNA, and it was originally simply a passive element, used by clay crystals to replicate (read reproduce). Eventually mutation made RNA become self-replicating. RNA then created DNA to increase its replication efficiency. Today, the large chemical machines and large clusters of these machines called, respectively, cells and organisms, fully dominate the earth. The weight of merely the macroscopic life on earth is about 1 trillion metric tons.
The atmosphere contains free oxygen because of life. Most or all coal, corral, oil, wood, glass, toxic waste, plastic, lime stone, slate and natural gas and many other substances exist because of life. Man dams rivers, dredges canals, mines the earth, and even leaves the atmosphere. We are long beyond the age of clay.
Do not tell me that grey goo is impossible. I am grey goo.

Be they clouds of Von Neumann machines or religiously fanatical armadas of green men bent of propagating their ecosystems to the entire universe, there may be other grey goos on the way. Absence of evidence of hegemonic, self-replicating horrors is, alas, not evidence of their absence.

Watch out, the clay is still mad.

Sure, most technology has unanticipated consequences. Often, they are bad. That alone is not sufficient to ban them

Look at what I wrote above. You will notice that I never recommended that we discontinue research into nano-tech. In fact, I did not make any policy recommendations at all.

I doubt it would it be possible to build a nano-assembler with specific restrictions that could not be changed. I believe too much in human ingenuity to believe that. I know that good DRM stuff does not work, so forget about only assembling certain things. Not to mention unfriendly countries selling them to whomever.

We have had computers for over 50 years. We have had bugs and viruses for decades (1946.) Yet, we still do not have good defensive mechanisms for immune like response to computer problems. Are there good reasons to expect this to be different? If nanotech really means total human extinction, “security through obscurity” maybe it will not stop it from happening, but it would allow everyone to live a bit longer.

The Russians stole much of the information they needed for their bomb program. The Chinese stole much of the information for their missile program. The Israelis have stolen entire warships. If nasty countries want nano-weapons and they are available, they will not be stopped.

Giblfiz, I was not intending to be anti-social. The most respect I can give your arguments is to offer them the careful consideration they deserve. By confining my comments to the points of your discussion, I avoid wasting either of our time.

Now, in your most recent comment you committed the Straw Man fallacy. I accept that not all appeals to authority are bad. That was not my argument. To avoid the fallacy of appeal to authority, you need to cite established findings to back your points:
1) That grey-goo outcomes are impossible
2) Human extinction from grey-goo was impossible
3) Aliens are far away if they exist.
You did not do any of those things.

My thousand-year comment was a response to your comment that:
“grey goo” is impossible, they mean “grey goo which can utterly out-compete the flura and fauna which we currently have at a rapid pace

It matters little if grey-goo happens in a year, a decade or 500 years. Extinction is forever.

The space age could make all the difference. If we can wait long enough for a permanent human presence in space, then maybe we can avoid the consequences of grey long enough to save our favorite parts of earth.

Increasing marginal utility Belligerati

Picture you are in a room with 10 people. Each of them has a slice of cake. How much you are willing to pay for a slice of the cake is the ‘marginal utility’ of having it, and the more cake you have the less any more cake is worth to you. You’d be willing to pay a $1 for the first slice of cake, but you’d only be will to pay 90 cents for the second slice. You’d only be willing to pay 10 cents for the 9th slice, and a penny for the 10th slice. Eating the 10th slice of cake in that room would probably make you sick, hence you want it a lot less than the first slice, which is delicious. That’s declining marginal utility.

Now picture you are in a room with 10 people screaming. You hate it when people scream, and you can pay a person to get them to stop screaming. Would you pay in a similar way to the cake example? Would you pay a $1 to get the first person to stop screaming, and a penny for the 10th person to stop screaming?

No. Getting one person to stop screaming would make very little difference in how much you dislike being in the room. Modern psychology tells us you might not even notice it. You’d probably only pay a penny to get that first guy to stop screaming. However getting the second guy to stop screaming might be worth 10 cents. And the last guy, the difference between some screaming and no screaming, might be worth the full dollar to you. The more quiet it got, the more a marginal difference in how quiet it is would be worth to you. There’s increasing returns to this good; the 10th guy not screaming is worth more than the first guy not screaming, which is the exact opposite dynamic of the 10th cake being less delicious than the first.

Persistence of Poverty, and Increasing Marginal Utility

This is an interesting story, but I’m not sure if we should really call this increasing marginal utility. I think of the screaming above as a public-bad in contrast to the more common public-goods. The classic example of a public good is national defense because it is clearly non-rivalrous (covering extra Americans costs nothing) and non-excludable (how can the military exclude you from protection when the enemy attacks). Here things are a little wobbly because screaming is a bad. Screaming is non-rivalrous because it can bother 10 people just as well as 9. Similarly, it is non-excludable. I cannot reduce the screaming people for you without reducing it for someone else. We have whole economic literatures devoted to understanding public goods and goods/bads.

Screaming is a bad. The more of it you have the less you marginally suffer just as in a good the more you have the less you gain. It is a public good so the private provision of silence should be smaller than the efficient level. We don’t really need to overhaul all of economics to do it. I’d be more interested in this line of reasoning if his example was something that you want (a good not a bad) where you have increasing marginal utility.

Can a man homestead a wave?

Lots to learn in the world

I sent a friend of mine the following quote I read in an article I found via Arts and Letters Daily. “The most celebrated Morgenbesser anecdote involved visiting Oxford philosopher J. L. Austin, who noted that it was peculiar that although there are many languages in which a double negative makes a positive, no example existed where two positives expressed a negative. In a dismissive voice, Morgenbesser replied from the audience, “Yeah, yeah…””

Which I thought was a really neat quote, so I sent it to a linguist friend of mind. His response, “Oh, that’s deep — a linguist would say it’s about the pragmatic (“yeah, yeah” conveys an attitude, which, in trucking in irony, often does not mean what the words “mean”) versus the grammatical (“I ain’t got no woman” means what it means, math and logic be damned). They are two different “modules”, like molecular biology versus histology. The pragmatic is superimposed upon the grammatical — the grammatical is generated first, and then the pragmatic is laid on top. The pragmatic is what makes us real people. But in real life, it’s a dandy anecdote.”

Now, I try to be a renaissance man, interested and somewhat educated in all sorts fields, but when I read something like that, I stand in awe before the magnitude of human knowledge.